Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
Unjustified Enrichment: Key Issues in Comparative Part 4

Lúc đầu, nó được đánh đồng với khái niệm dân sự rất rộng dolus Malus, trong đó bao gồm tất cả các loại trường hợp liên quan đến cố ý lừa dối, gian lận hoặc circumvention.12 Tuy nhiên, dưới ảnh hưởng của pháp luật thông thường, "lừa đảo" sau này được giải thích hạn chế hơn, cùng rất tương tự như của pháp luật về tiếng Anh như quy định trên đường. | fraud duress and unjustified enrichment 197 any other artifice .11 As far as South African law is concerned the meaning of fraud has long been uncertain due to a strange convergence of civil-and common-law influences. At first it was equated with the very broad civilian concept of dolus malus which covered all sorts of cases involving intentional deception cheating or iircumvention.12 However under the influence of the common law fraud later came to be interpreted more restrictively along lines very similar to that of the English law as set out above. Thus in all these systems fraud or its equivalent at least consists in knowingly or intentionally making a false representation. Although it could still cover grosn ncgligencr nndeo uc uhmih law it ÍS dear that it certainly does not cover mere negligent or innocent misrepresentation. It is as a descriptor of the basic fact pattern of particularly serious types of misrepresentation that the concept of fraud will be used here.13 The differences in where the cut-off point lies can for present purposes be regarded as of secondary importance.14 However a difference which is especially important in the context of the law of unjustified enrichment is the way in which these different systems perceive the relationship between fraud and certain other improper ways of obtaining consent. In English contract-law texts fraud is viewed as a species of misrepresentation 15 and therefore as a specific means of inducing an error. It is also not traditionally grouped together with duress. This stands in contrast to the position in German and Dutch law which reflect 11 Art. 3 44 3 BW also see A. S. Hartkamp Mr. C Asser s Handleiding tot de Beoefening van Het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht - Verbintenissenrecht 1997 vol. II nn. 199-204 where it is indicated that the expression through any other artifice door een andere kunstgreep should be interpreted restrictively. Bedrog essentially requires an intention to deceive. 12 See Lubbe Voidable .